M.G. SHARMA vs INCHARGE EPFO

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission in Appeal No. 401 of 2004 the complainant has filed this revision petition before us. Case in Brief:

THE complainant-M G Sharma, sought voluntary retirement from its erstwhile employer M/s. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. which subsequently merged with M/s. Wyeth Ltd. He served his employer in Chandigarh office from January, 1976 to June, 1993 and their Delhi office from July, 1993 till the date of his voluntary retirement. He was entitled to benefits under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. THE complainant inter alia stated that his employer had not furnished the details of his employment which resulted in reduction of his pension. O.P. 1 - EPFO had not taken action against O.P. No. 2 for their default etc. Accordingly, he claimed the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed to this Hon''ble Forum that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to compensate the applicant/complainant for the damages suffered by him amounting to Rs. 1.00 lakh on account of the deficiencies of services on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, besides giving arrears of pension with interest/early fixation of pension as per correct basic plus DA of the applicant.

Epfo contended that the District Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action accrued at Chandigarh. Complainant has suppressed the material facts that M/s. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd., was an exempted establishment and they have been maintaining the details of PF Accounts and his PF records were maintained by the RPFC Office at Mumbai and after that his records were maintained at Delhi. Complainant was required to apply for transfer of his past service benefits from the RPFC Mumbai to Delhi in the prescribed form No. 13, but he did not do so till 9.7.2003. He applied for the same only on 10.7.2003. The RPFC Mumbai transferred the past service on 10.10.203 and on 16.10.2003 his monthly pension order was issued to him payable at Chandigarh. Hence, there was no deficiency on their part. O.P. No. 2 also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. They have further stated that the complainant took voluntary retirement and was relieved from service on 20.11.2001 and all his statutory benefits including the provident fund and gratuity were paid to him which he accepted without any protest and demur. Opposite party pleaded that paragraph 57 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 requires the employee concerned to apply to the Commissioner concerned for transfer of balance of his provident fund existing in his account to another account in the other region by submitting form No. 13 duly signed by him towards submission through his employer. Application for this purpose dated 30.6.2003 was forwarded to RPFC Delhi on 10.7.2003 and there has been no delay on their part.

The District Forum taking into account the affidavit filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi and the Legal Manager of O.P. 2 relating to form No. 13 in para 57 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 submitted by the complainant for transfer of EPF Account from Mumbai office to Delhi in June, 2003, held that it was the duty of the complainant himself to submit the application in form No. 13 through his employer for transfer of EPF Account, from Mumbai to Delhi, but he did not file such an application earlier than 30.6.2003. Therefore, the major chunk of delay was caused by the complainant himself. However, he has concealed this material fact and has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. Therefore, apart from the merits of the case, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties in great detail dismissed the appeal being without merit. It is clear from the records that the complainant received his PF accumulation and gratuity due to him without protest. During the hearing of the case, the revision petitioner (complainant) urged that the salary was revised after he had taken voluntary retirement in view of the bi-partite settlement between the Union and the Management of his erstwhile employer. The additional benefits were given to him soon after he signed the memorandum of statement (MOS). Hence, it is clear that the consequential benefits like increase in pay/DA and terminal benefits would have been reworked after he has signed the MOS. If he is not satisfied with the same he could have filed a separate complaint.

THE issue remains to be decided whether there has been any delay in sanctioning the pension by the EPFO Regional Office, Pension Cell and whether his erstwhile employer has contributed to this delay resulting in deficiency in service by them. In this connection it is fruitful to refer to Clause 57.1 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which is reproduced below: Where a member of the fund ceases to be employed in one region and secures employment in another region in an establishment to which this scheme applies or which is an exempted establishment or which is not covered under the Act but has a provident funds scheme of its own, he may apply to the Commissioner within whose jurisdiction he was previously employed, in such form as the Commissioner may specify, for transfer of balance of the provident fund in his existing account to his account in the other region. Similarly form No. 13 para 57(1) has to be submitted by the member to the present employer for onward transmission to the Commissioner, EPF by whom the transfer is to be effected. In this connection it is very clear that he has filed the same on 30.6.2003 which was sent to RPFC Mumbai on 10.7.203 who had given the registration number to his erstwhile employer when he was working at Chandigarh. This was transferred by the RPFC Mumbai and sent to the office of RPFC Delhi on 10.10.2003. Thereafter the matter was further processed in RPFC Delhi and pension payment order was issued on 20.11.2003. Hence, it is very clear that though he had taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 21.11.2001. He chose to submit the form No. 13 for transfer of his account only on 30.6.2003, the major delay has occurred at his level. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this revision petition. As the orders passed by the lower Fora do not suffer from jurisdictional error or legal infirmity under Section 21(b) of the , the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.